[ppml] Policy Proposal 2006-4: IPv6 Direct PI Assignments forEnd Sites - revised text

[Howard, W. Lee]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On 
> Behalf Of Marshall Eubanks
> Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 8:34 PM
> To: Andrew Dul
> Cc: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2006-4: IPv6 Direct PI 
> Assignments forEnd Sites - revised text
> 
> Dear Andrew;
> 
> A question : it says
> 
>       6.5.8.1. To qualify for a direct end site assignment, an
> organization must meet all of the following criteria:
> 
> <snip>
>           2. be an end site;
> <snip>
> 
> Is "end site" clearly defined somewhere ?

http://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six29

6.2.9. End site
An end site is defined as an end user (subscriber) who has a business
relationship with a service provider that involves:

that service provider assigning address space to the end user 
that service provider providing transit service for the end user to
other sites 
that service provider carrying the end user's traffic. 
that service provider advertising an aggregate prefix route that
contains the end user's assignment 




> 
> A large (or even not so large) corporation may well act as a transit  
> provider to remote corporate locations;
> I would argue that the entire entity is a end site, no matter how  
> distributed, but I just wanted to make
> this clear.

An end site is an organization that gets assignments and transit 
from an upstream.  Under this definition, if an organization gets
an (unaggregatable) PI assignment, it is not an end site.  A
remote office could be considered to be an end site.

Lee


> 
> Regards
> Marshall Eubanks
> 
> On Apr 3, 2006, at 7:44 PM, Andrew Dul wrote:
> 
> >>  -------Original Message-------
> >>  From: Scott Leibrand <sleibrand at internap.com>
> >>  Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2006-4: IPv6 Direct PI  
> >> Assignments for End Sites - revised text
> >>  Sent: 03 Apr '06 15:37
> >>
> >>  Andrew,
> >>
> >>  This text doesn't seem to match my reading of your proposed  
> >> revisions from
> >>  your recent message(s).  Can you give us a diff of the changes and
> >>  rationale for them?
> >
> > I added the text to allow a /48 per ASN.  The text is different  
> > than what was originally posted on the list last week.  Thanks to  
> > those in the background who helped cleanup the text.  The 
> intent of  
> > what I proposed last week is unchanged.
> >
> > The reserved /44 remains unchanged.  There didn't seem to be any  
> > vocal support for a larger (/40) reserved block.
> >
> > Andrew
> > _______________________________________________
> > PPML mailing list
> > PPML at arin.net
> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
>